Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: no claim, no draw (etc.)

Author: Rolf Tueschen

Date: 16:56:59 12/25/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 25, 2003 at 04:07:38, Uri Blass wrote:

>On December 25, 2003 at 03:27:02, Mike S. wrote:
>
>>On December 24, 2003 at 21:41:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>(...)
>>
>>>NOPE Mike! That a 3-fold, once you notice it, is a draw, this is NOT something
>>>special for computerchess, but for human chess and from there it was taken to
>>>computerchess.
>>
>>You certainly know (?) that a 3-fold is *not* automatically a draw once one
>>notices it, but *only when claimed* It doesn't have to be a draw. The same goes
>>for the 50 move rule. The only "must" draw like that is stalemate :-)
>>
>>When I'm (otherwise) *winning*, i.e. a rook up etc., and my opponent forces a
>>perpetual, I won't claim a draw of course. Still, I may take notice of it. But
>>it makes no sense to claim. Also, I *don't have to claim* (of course independent
>>from who's better). If the opponent misses it - his business. That's how it
>>actually really is in chess in general (I don't quite know what else you are
>>talking about).
>>
>>I guess you may assume, all computerchess programs would be so foolish to claim
>>the draw against themselves then in a situation like above, but that's not true
>>either.
>
>No
>I do not think that chess programs are foolish by claiming draw every time they
>can do it based on a 3 time repetition.
>
>The point is that every 3 time repetition can be claimed by both sides.
>It is logical to assume that the opponent does not do some mistakes(otherwise
>programs will never resign).
>
>For chess programs I assume that the mistake of not claiming a draw by 3 time
>repetition is a mistake that they do not do.
>
>If I play against opponent that does not do the mistake of not claiming a draw
>by 3 time repetition then I can lose nothing by claiming a draw everytime that I
>can do it based on 3 time repetition because in that case the fact that the
>opponent did not claim a draw proves that it is good for me to claim a draw(or
>alternatively if it is my move and I consider if to claim a draw based on
>reptition after the move that I plan then I can be sure that if not claiming a
>draw is good for me the opponent will claim a draw immediately after my move).
>
>I do not care about the case when I play against an opponent that does the
>mistake of not claiming a draw by 3 time repetition because this opponent is a
>usually an human and the tournament is a computer tournament.
>
>
> I definetely know Nimzo 2000 (own GUI) doesn't claim such draws when 0.5
>>would be lost by it so to speak.
>
>How can it lose 1/2 points by it?
>It only can lose it by a bug.
>
>A program with no stupid bugs cannot get into 3 time reptition from a winning
>position

Thank you, Uri, for that honest statement. In these times one must really
appreciate such a thing! I won't forget your civil courage. Although you might
not have the same festivity order let me send you my best regards on this high
Christian day.

All the best to your own baby,

Rolf


>and if the original position is a draw then it does not lose 1/2 point
>by it but only lose some chance that the opponent will go wrong.
>
>
>
> I guess Fritz in serious rating game mode will
>>behave the same, but I didn't test that.
>
>Fritz in a serious rating mode will not get into a 3 time repetition from a
>winning position if it has no serious bugs.
>
>Uri



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.